S S NAFDE Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the action of respondents of recovering certain amount from the retiral dues of the petitioner, as is indicated in the Pension Payment Order dated 28.2.2001. It is contended that the petitioner was serving on the post of Deputy Chief Medical Officer at Kurai, District Seoni, when he gave a notice for his voluntary retirement. The said notice was not acted upon on first occasion, therefore, a repeated request was made on 1.9.1999, categorically indicating in the notice that the petitioner would retire from service on 30.11.1999. However, the notice of voluntary retirement given by the petitioner was not accepted for a long period. Certain correspondence was done of which a reply was submitted by the petitioner, yet the orders were not issued accepting the voluntary retirement of petitioner from the proposed date. Ultimately, final order was passed on such a request of the petitioner on 14.8.2000, accepting the notice of voluntary retirement with retrospective effect, i.e. the date from which the petitioner was willing to voluntary retire. Even after the date of retirement indicated by the petitioner in his notice, he was made to work and ultimately was relieved on 31.8.2000. The petitioner was sent for training in between this period and was paid the salary. However, while passing the order, nothing was said in this respect, erroneously, the petitioner was voluntary retired with retrospective effect and when the pension case of the petitioner was prepared, it was said that salary was not to be paid to the petitioner after 30.11.1999 and calculating the said amount paid to the petitioner upto 31.8.2000, the same has been recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner. It is contended that such an action of the respondent is per se illegal as it was their folly not to retire the petitioner from the date of his choice by accepting the notice of voluntary retirement timely and since the petitioner was made to work, even after the period of notice of voluntary retirement, he was entitled to the payment of salary for the said period. The recovery so made from the petitioner is, thus, illegal and the said amount is required to be refunded to the petitioner with interest.

(2.) Refuting the allegations made by the petitioner in his petition, the respondents have filed a detailed return. They have contended that in fact in terms of the provisions of Rule 42 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short), the petitioner was not to work even for a single day after 30.11.1999, even if there was no communication made by the competent authority with respect to the acceptance of the notice of voluntary retirement. It is contended that the voluntary retirement if opted for from a future date, for which a notice is given, if the same is not withdrawn by the employee, it become operative from the date indicated in the notice and the employee concerned stood voluntary retired from the date of his choice indicated in the notice. He is not entitled to hold the post for any date hence after and neither he is entitled to payment of any salary nor any other service benefits. In view of this, it is contended that the continuance of services of the petitioner after 30.11.1999 was not justified. He was not entitled to work on the post nor any salary was to be paid to him. The fact was not communicated to the higher authorities of the department and, thus, the petitioner was not entitled to any relief claimed in the petition. Since the amount of salary paid with effect from 1.12.1999 upto 30.8.2000 was illegally received by the petitioner, in terms of the provisions of Rule 65 of the Rules, the said amount was rightly recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner. Thus, no wrong is committed by the respondents and, as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.